[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit



  Ran,

  While my motivation for starting this may be obvious, I would feel the
same way if I had a 5GB disk at my disposal. 

  Auditing is not germane to the protocol itself. Its a security feature
that is very valuable but I don't think it should be part of the definition
of what makes an implementation be "IPsec compliant". 

  The suggestion that implementors don't do the "SHOULD implement" is not
really true as the recent ANX IPsec bake-off demonstrated. "SHOULD" is
very important and things like auditing capability will weigh heavily in
the minds of customers when they start to buy this stuff.

>   If the language is changed at all (which I don't believe is best), 
> I'd propose changing it to something like "IPsec implementations having 
> access to non-volatile storage MUST audit... and all other implementations 
> SHOULD audit...".

  This is even worse. NVRAM is a precious resource. I'm not saying that
a cisco router cannot audit. There are ways it can satisfy this requirement
but I just think the requirement is bull.

  I actually didn't think it was all that controversial either. 

  Dan.



Follow-Ups: References: